+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: POBs near mining fields (/showthread.php?tid=144389)
RE: POBs near mining fields - sindroms - 10-19-2016
Tone it down a bit, please.
RE: POBs near mining fields - JunkerTown - 10-19-2016
(10-19-2016, 09:55 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote:Why do your responses always come at me in an offensive way?(10-19-2016, 09:39 PM)JunkerTown Wrote: because of it being considered "annoying".
It's not considered annoying. It's considered harmful to game-play.
Why is this concept so hard for you to swallow?
Oh wait...
We were trying to have a discussion here and you seem to have only trolling intentions.
Now to further illustrate my previous statement..
(10-19-2016, 09:21 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: And the only motivation that is strong enough to do that is when a lot of people are annoyed enough about the target. Guess... that happened.
Now... let's continue the thought: If the POB in question was not annoying any more because it wasn't the 1/79, the one cancer blocking area denial base left... how ridiculously hard would it become to make people waste billions on Jorms, waste time, waste energy... on something that does not annoy you any more?
RE: POBs near mining fields - WildBill - 10-19-2016
Jack, JT, I've got nothing but respect for both of you. You guys know this. But, there are a couple of things that should be addressed here.
(10-19-2016, 09:21 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: @JunkerTown: Nice attempt at baiting and at insinuating that the siege is oorp. You are doing the "Junker Congress victim" racket again. It's not working.
While JT is still a member of Junker Congress he doesn't speak for us. He is providing examples from his personal history on this server. Dragging us into it isn't necessary.
(10-19-2016, 09:21 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: you need good motivation. And the only motivation that is strong enough to do that is when a lot of people are annoyed enough about the target. Guess... that happened.
This is stating that the players are annoyed, not that Hessians are really concerned about the station.
(10-19-2016, 09:03 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Just... for hell's sake... move it.
Look for a nice place.
Request the relocation.
I am very sure that this would also stop the siege.
So you are stating here that they don't really care about the station and as stated above are merely annoyed (as players) about it's location. The simple fact that the siege would end because the station is moved points to a very distinct ooRP objective. They should be targeting this station no matter where it is located so long as it is in the Hessian ZOI. Personal annoyance should not affect iRP actions.
(10-19-2016, 07:35 PM)JunkerTown Wrote: Plenty of other times to have these interactions but just not in the way that you want them.
Doesn't make them any more or less fun or interesting.
I have not underestimated anything.
Like how far some are willing to go.
To get what they want.
This was baiting just a little.
The point is, we are here to discuss whether or not these station(s) need to be moved/removed by admins. Truthfully this issue has already been addressed by admins and the poll itself is very misleading to start with. The 15k issue is already a rule. It's really a trick question, it misleads the user by presenting a question that the rules have already clarified in favor of their hate toward an existing POB.
I can see very important points to both sides of the argument. I would ask that everyone calm down for a bit. Jack, I can see that you are starting to get upset. I don't think you are posting with a clear head, as shown above, your answers are starting to paint a very bad picture, please step back for a bit and come back with some focus and a clear head. We need valid points here from both sides.
RE: POBs near mining fields - Shush Muppet - 10-19-2016
The issue seems to be that both parties involved have valid points and refuse to back down.
When disagreements reach this point, pride is on the line. Someone is going to have to back down and feel foolish or there will be bloodshed. The other option is intervention from the Admins. And both parties involved are currently going all-in that the Admin team will side with their viewpoint if they just hold out long enough.
This is sheer foolishness. There is no way out of this with someone getting hurt. But there is still the choice of how bad the wound will be. It can either be a wound of pride... or a wound much worse that could turn into a game of sanctionlancer.
It does not need to get to that point. Every large divide cleaves a little more from this community. We all love this game. Let's try to make sure it doesn't die a premature death because we just can't stand the idea of backing down once in awhile.
RE: POBs near mining fields - Jack_Henderson - 10-19-2016
Wait a moment. @JunkerTown... I was wondering why there is such a passionate defense of a POB that is obviously damaging gameplay coming from your side and finally I was hinted at a fitting potential motive.
...do you by any chance have links to a POB that classifies as "Area denial, hole blocking base" named La Fortalezza?
=> http://imgur.com/a/93N8K; lots of turrets. Grouped nicely around a jump hole. A PoB location that definitely also classifies as detrimental to gameplay - and this is known since King's Cross and Puerto. Could it be that there is a certain uneasiness about the push to finally remove negative effects that badly placed POBs have been doing for years to the gameplay?
...did you accidentally vote more than one time?
Jack - going to bed now. Enjoy Disco.
RE: POBs near mining fields - Shush Muppet - 10-19-2016
(10-19-2016, 11:32 PM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Wait a moment. @JunkerTown...
(10-19-2016, 11:22 PM)Soldiers.Fortune Wrote:
It does not need to get to this point.
RE: POBs near mining fields - WildBill - 10-20-2016
Jack, I am very disappointed in where you have taken this. Instead of listening to someone that actually respects you, you bring in to question something you know very little about. So I will make this as clear as possible.
1. JT is a faction member, and not a very active one. His opinions here are his personal opinions based on his experiences in this community and he has been around here for quite some time.
2. Why bring LF into this? The goal was to have that station moved once we were disconnected from Liberty like the admins said we would be. We all know the situation with LF and it's history as being the only thing stopping the LSF from completing their ultimate agenda of committing mass genocide on the Junker's of Puerto Rico. That was the entire point of moving the system. We don't have the Military capabilities of defending our home and rely solely on the ingenuity of our engineers maintaining that station. Hopefully someone will eventually see the real issue with PR's location and fix it so we can have a good reason to move the station.
Please Jack, JT, I've got too much respect and faith in your abilities to see the debate from both sides and not resort to flinging mud here. Some very valid points have been made on both sides, don't go down this road or the points raised become mute.
RE: POBs near mining fields - NOVA-5 - 10-20-2016
The whole 15k from a field to a Pob? Is it that much of a hike to have rules changed again?
Or is it the game mechanics, like Pobs sitting inside other solar's zones,
like Falster Station having the protection from Aland Shipyard's hitbox or
just making the place look a right mess no matter where it sits in the end?
"Your's a core 5 there Jack?...Sorted Aye!"
I mean, now there's rules & rules where you can build & rules of rules how far
you can get with that build, you can have your cake & eat it, like Jack there.
Well, you can have a nibble on it to core 2...
RE: POBs near mining fields - Xenon - 10-20-2016
How about a fix for the kruger base, once and for all - and you can apply that to the rest of the bases that have similar problems.
You cannot move the base without the base owner approval, i understand that specially when the rule is implemented after the base construction
BUT - developers keep moving the mining areas and fields from time to time, SO how about extending the asteroid area where the kruger base is located for another 30k east or south and then move the mining area 15k away from the base location
This will keep the base inside the asteroid area.
This will move the mining field 15k away from the base.
Situation Fixed.
Everybody go back to game and try to have fun unless you find another thing to discuss here.
how about that? Kruger owners? Complainers too? Administrators? Developers?
RE: POBs near mining fields - MÃmir - 10-20-2016
I don't get it... Why don't staff just move the base when everyone in their right mind know what the problem with that base is.
So what if a group of players feel entitled to have their stuff anywhere, staff is in a position to complete ignore that, and so they should. It's these ridiculous prolonged discussions/situations that makes people salty and makes playing this game such a drag.
When the rule was fixed, you should just have done a sweep and made sure all bases complied with the new ruleset and work with the base owners to ensure that their bases would comply, rather than allow exceptions. Because exceptions make people feel super special and entitled, which in turn makes them very upset when that entitlement is challenged.
I don't understand why staff don't just take more decisions, are more firm, and apply more common sense. Situations detrimental to gameplay in some areas (like this Kruger bases provenly is) is apparently not worthy of an admin ruling, perhaps they are too busy chasing dissenters and discussing what to do to 'toxic players' rather than actually fix things that are within their power (and obligation) to fix.
This train derailed a long time ago, we were a lot of people stating over and over and over again what the problems were with POBs and how they were going to mess things up (and how from day 1 all bases were built to block jumphole/guard minefields/be douchebags), and it took years for staff to design and implement a ruleset to which there are still exceptions... Why? It's truly mind-boggling that this discussion is on, when there is a clear ruleset posted on the forum. Just enforce it.